Author
Topic: WOW 14000 DOW (Read 6227 times)

I love watching two people attack an idea that they don't really have a clue about.

No offense.

The dynamic fascinates me.

I haven't really been in attack mode. The sum total of what I know, is based on a little video about a volunteer society, which was made by libertarians that think like you. They left out a lot of stuff in the perfect world they were trying to present.

And now we are pivoting to a discussion on anarchy, society and state.

And if you thought I lost the debate we were having on theory, then I have some ocean front property, in Arizona..

Nothing has changed, you theorize that your form of non govt, govt, will somehow miraculously grow from the ashes of half the country not participating in elections.That's a fools bet, which makes the rest of your proposal extremely suspect, therein raising the burden of proof on your part to make your case.

There are too many gray areas in what you're proposing, you give no facts to back it up, merely theory.

Let me give you an example of theory, I theorize from my observations, that Husein is planning a civil war, if one connects all the dots and compares them to history, percentage wise, there is a good chance that is his plan.However, since I have no verifiable facts to state my case, we cannot move against him, instead we are stuck with theory or conjecture.

It seems to me that your "no government" based society is based on "Rouseallian" presumption that mankind is good and will always seek cooperation over conflict if given the choice.

I.eRousseau presumption:Man comes over a dying man in the woods, he helps him recover out of mutual respect/love and together they live in harmony.

John Locke presumption:Man comes over a dying man in the woods, he helps him out of self interest and together they strive to conquer nature.

Thomas Hobbes presumption:Man comes over a dying man in the woods, he quickly stomps his skulls in and nicks his stuff because he knows the dying man would do the same to him if given the chance.

Rousseau based his presumption on the theory of the supposed noble savage, something that is still embraced by hippies today, but disproved by factual evidence of savages in all places of the world. As far as epistemology goes, you can observe an event or events and make generalizations that this is a general law or natural law, but stating that theory/fact will always happen is comparing a given number against infinity which will always make the theory/fact fallible because you cant have infinite amount of data. But then again that whole argument is an oxymoron, because it is impossibility in itself. We have to work with what we have in the metaphysical framework given to us by God, and hypothesis proven to be qualitative/quantitative true is a fact until disproven, that it may be disproved doesn't make it any less valid.

It seems to me that your "no government" based society is based on "Rouseallian" presumption that mankind is good and will always seek cooperation over conflict if given the choice.

I.eRousseau presumption:Man comes over a dying man in the woods, he helps him recover out of mutual respect/love and together they live in harmony.

John Locke presumption:Man comes over a dying man in the woods, he helps him out of self interest and together they strive to conquer nature.

Thomas Hobbes presumption:Man comes over a dying man in the woods, he quickly stomps his skulls in and nicks his stuff because he knows the dying man would do the same to him if given the chance.

Rousseau based his presumption on the theory of the supposed noble savage, something that is still embraced by hippies today, but disproved by factual evidence of savages in all places of the world. As far as epistemology goes, you can observe an event or events and make generalizations that this is a general law or natural law, but stating that theory/fact will always happen is comparing a given number against infinity which will always make the theory/fact fallible because you cant have infinite amount of data. But then again that whole argument is an oxymoron, because it is impossibility in itself. We have to work with what we have in the metaphysical framework given to us by God, and hypothesis proven to be qualitative/quantitative true is a fact until disproven, that it may be disproved doesn't make it any less valid.

Great point.Rousseau was a liberal, in that he was a dreamer imprinting his value set upon the rest oh humanity, and Hobbes knew man to be inherently good, but also an opportunist and will consider his own station or status in life first.

Like most thinking people who weigh all of history, not just the good events, realize there have been cultures since the beginning of time that would see you as merely dinner had they happened upon a wounded man, like Korowai tribe of Papau New Gunieau, a tribe that would happily make you the focus of dinner, or rather, the main course.Does anyone even remotely think they hold the same set of values as the rest of us?

You make an excellent point with your examples. In essence what he is trying to do is in effect predict the outcome of the future based on theory, like claiming only one side need lay down their arms and war would end.End badly for one side that is, but, end none the less, in the same way he claims not voting will collapse the Govt.Pretty ludicrous way of achieving victory. For the other side, that is.

Yeah Hobbes saw government as a necessity as a protection for the individual against the mob, he lived through the english civil war and saw it first hand. The difference between Locke and Hobbes is essentially that Hobbes believes the state to be a covenant between citizen and Monarch, and no matter how bad the Monarch can be, the alternative which is a state of nature (the strong preys on the weak, i.e socialist state the mob preys on the individual) the Monarch is always preferable. Whereas Locke believes the moment government stop protecting private property rights of citizens is the moment the covenant is broken.

Universal values, now thats a good discussion, from what I remember Socrates held the belief that a given set of values are superior, and these can be found universally in most cultures, but obviouslynot all. At the other hand you have the bronze age equivalents of modern day liberals called the Relativists that claimed no moral/cultural value is superior its all relative.

When it comes to savages this is perfectly reflected in tribes such as the "Korowai" as you described who the left claim to be culturally equivalent to western society. I have still to hear a good argument from a liberal/socialist on why Sharia is morally eqvivalent to our universal suffrage society though

It is funny though, as you said in another thread some cultures have found the universal God given truths thousands of years ago, but the battle between those who embrace those values and the relativists is still the same as today.

Yeah Hobbes saw government as a necessity as a protection for the individual against the mob, he lived through the english civil war and saw it first hand. The difference between Locke and Hobbes is essentially that Hobbes believes the state to be a covenant between citizen and Monarch, and no matter how bad the Monarch can be, the alternative which is a state of nature (the strong preys on the weak, i.e socialist state the mob preys on the individual) the Monarch is always preferable. Whereas Locke believes the moment government stop protecting private property rights of citizens is the moment the covenant is broken.

Universal values, now thats a good discussion, from what I remember Socrates held the belief that a given set of values are superior, and these can be found universally in most cultures, but obviouslynot all. At the other hand you have the bronze age equivalents of modern day liberals called the Relativists that claimed no moral/cultural value is superior its all relative.

When it comes to savages this is perfectly reflected in tribes such as the "Korowai" as you described who the left claim to be culturally equivalent to western society. I have still to hear a good argument from a liberal/socialist on why Sharia is morally eqvivalent to our universal suffrage society though

It is funny though, as you said in another thread some cultures have found the universal God given truths thousands of years ago, but the battle between those who embrace those values and the relativists is still the same as today.

Ah yeas, moral relativism and why libs believe in true Democracies and hate our Republic.They hate barriers, they are under the illusion that whatever the majority deems moral is therefore the law of the land.I have yet to see a business prosper under true Democratic rule. Yet libs still think we can manipulate the Bill of Rights and Constitution to reflect the morals of the day, in turn throwing out the very laws that have allowed us to prosper as a people.There is no need to throw away a perfectly good form of governance only to replace it with a a proven failure, true Democracy, which is exactly what is being proposed in this thread by TL.

Obama had nothing to do with the Dow, it was all private industry. How many jobs did the unions create or how many companies did they start up. The answer is none. Small independent businessmen ventured they future and won.

It seems to me that your "no government" based society is based on "Rouseallian" presumption that mankind is good and will always seek cooperation over conflict if given the choice.

I.eRousseau presumption:Man comes over a dying man in the woods, he helps him recover out of mutual respect/love and together they live in harmony.

John Locke presumption:Man comes over a dying man in the woods, he helps him out of self interest and together they strive to conquer nature.

Thomas Hobbes presumption:Man comes over a dying man in the woods, he quickly stomps his skulls in and nicks his stuff because he knows the dying man would do the same to him if given the chance.

Rousseau based his presumption on the theory of the supposed noble savage, something that is still embraced by hippies today, but disproved by factual evidence of savages in all places of the world. As far as epistemology goes, you can observe an event or events and make generalizations that this is a general law or natural law, but stating that theory/fact will always happen is comparing a given number against infinity which will always make the theory/fact fallible because you cant have infinite amount of data. But then again that whole argument is an oxymoron, because it is impossibility in itself. We have to work with what we have in the metaphysical framework given to us by God, and hypothesis proven to be qualitative/quantitative true is a fact until disproven, that it may be disproved doesn't make it any less valid.

I would point to Locke before I would Rousseau, in terms of intellectual pedigree.

Though, I fail to see any merit in Hobbes. If man is too flawed to get along, then he is much to flawed to rule of others.

And the spontaneous order theory of society, language, money and law also contradicts the Hobbesian view that a government is necessary to have society.

Logged

Only the individual thinks. Only the individual reasons. Only the individual acts. Ludwig von Mises

The dow is now going up and down based on hope and despair. Hope whenever anything that remotely looks like deficit-fighting occurs, despair whenever new spending and taxing make it look like things are getting worse.

A long time ago the dow was a place where capital was raised, and the pulse of the business world could be taken. And it was a good barometer of the economy.

For the last 20 or so years, it was bastardized into a casino for Wall Street. Where insane speculation, shorting, and derivatives made it representative of nothing except a free-for-all, where the strongest changed the direction and fabric of it to try and hatch new schemes.